STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SUBAL CHANDRA DAS & ORS.

Coram

Citation

Head Notes

Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Once Moharrirs have been redesignated as LDCs and fused into the
category of LDCs all become a class. It would appear that in an earlier
litigation filed by the parties, inter se promotion between the Moharrirs
and LDCs as UDC was considered and the High Court in a writ petition had
directed the Government to prescribe 1:1 ratio between Moharrirs and LDCs.
for promotion to the post of UDCs. The State Government had acted upon and
issued rules in that behalf. Therefore, each source, until exhausted, has
channel of promotion to the UDC within their respective 50% quota. [476-H;
477-A-B]
2. On the Moharrirs being integrated as LDCs., no further distinction or
discrimination in the scale of pay or promotion chances between Moharrirs
and the direct recruit LDCs. is maintainable. All are now en-titled to get
the same scale of pay and other service benefits. It would appear that in
some instances some of the Moharrirs, due to length of service, are getting
higher pay. In fixing their scale of pay as LDC, their previous higher pay
due to increments was needed to be protected as special pay and seems to be
subject matter of litigation pending before the High Court. Therefore, this
Court need not go into that question. [477-B-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11566 of 1995.

Subject

Service Law :
West Bengal Seivice Rules-Scales of pay-Muharrirs, feeder post to LDC-Fused
into post LDC-Intermediary scale of pay between LDC and UDC granted by the
High Court-Validity of.
The posts of Muharrirs, though initially feeder posts to the Lower Division
Clerks, due to Court orders and recommendation made by the Pay Commission,
were redesignated as LDCs and fused into the posts of LDCs.
On the question whether the erstwhile direct recruit LDCs would be entitled
to higher scale of pay than that of the promoted LDCs. The High Court
directed that the pay scales of LDCs and UDCs should be higher than the pay
scales granted to the Moharrirs for the corresponding periods from
1.4.1970. Accordingly, an intermediary scale of pay between LDC and UDC to
the erstwhile direct recruit LDCs was created Against this, the State
Government had preferred the present appeal.

Judgment

PETITIONER:
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SUBAL CHANDRA DAS & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 191 JT 1995 (9) 282
1995 SCALE (7)237
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the Division
Bench judgment dated 3rd September, 1993 of the Calcutta
High Court in Matter No.6332 of 1988. Admitted facts are
that "Moharrir" in the Collectorate of Nadia etc. was
initially a feeder post for promotion to the post of Lower
Division Clerk. Subsequently, due to spate of litigation
Moharrirs were redesignated as Lower Division Clerks. The
First Pay Commission had recommended in this behalf thus :
"The scale of pay of Lower Division
Clerk is Rs.125-200/- and that of
Moharir Rs.100-140/-. It has been
recommended elsewhere the existing posts
of Moharrirs should, as far as possible,
be converted into posts of Lower
Division Clerks. The revised scale
recommended for these posts is the
revised scale recommended for Lower
Division Clerks in District Officers".
Acting thereon, the Government issued two orders. After
Government decided that the pay-scale of Muharrirs, working
in the Regional Offices under the Irrigation and Waterways
Department and in the Regional Offices of the Land and Land
Reforms Department, would be revised from Rs.180-350/- to

Rs.230-425/- with effect from 1.4.70 subject to the
condition that there would be no arrear adjustment of salary
prior to February 1978 and that their pay in the revised
scale of Rs.230-425/- would be fixed under the provisions of
WBS (ROPA) Rules, 1970.
Another order dated December 13, 1989 reads as under :
"The Governor has been pleased to decide
that all the existing posts of
Muharrirs, L.R. Act Muharrirs and
Copyists held by a person having passed
in School Final or its equivalent as the
minimum educational qualification and
excepting those of the above mentioned
posts which are held by persons not
having the educational qualification of
School Final or its equivalent in the
Registration Offices will be designated
as posts of Lower Division Clerk.
This order takes effect from 1.7.89 and
henceforth all such new posts to be
created to the Registration Offices will
be designated as Lower Division Clerk."
As a consequence, the posts of Muharrirs have been
redesignated as Lower Division Clerks. This is reiterated by
the State in paragraph 19 of the SLP as under :
"The petitioners state that the post of
Muharrirs have duly been abolished by
virtue of the Government Orders which
were issued in compliance with the order
of the Court whereby the post of
Moharrirs were held to be equal to the
post of L.D. Clerks. Since the post of
Moharrirs have been redesignated as L.D.
Clerks, question of post of L.D. Clerks
being a promotional post as that of
Moharrirs does not and cannot arise."
Thus, it could be seen that the posts of Muharrirs,
though initially feeder posts to the Lower Division Clerks,
due to Court orders and recommendation made by the Pay
Commission, were redesignated as LDCs and were fused into
the posts of Lower Division Clerks. Thereby, there is only
one cadre, i.e., Lower Division Clerk.
Shri M.P. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents, has placed before us a letter dated May 8,
1995 addressed by the District Magistrate & Collector, North
24 - Parganas, and on its basis he contended that two cadres
are still existing. The letter addressed by the Collector is
clearly wrong and it is in conflict with the orders passed
by the Government. We have seen the statutory rule also
placed before us. Rules were corrected upto October 15,
1987. It is seen that aforesaid orders were reissued
thereafter. Therefore, the rules are not in conflict with
the orders passed by the Government.
The question, therefore, would be whether the erstwhile
direct recruit L.D. Clerks would be entitled to higher scale
of pay than that of promoted L.D.C. In the impugned order
the Division Bench of the High Court directed thus :
"The petitioners should succeed in this
writ petition. The respondents are
directed to revise the pay scales of the
petitioners with retrospective effect
from 1.4.70 and 1.4.74/1.8.74 in
exercise of the powers conferred by Rule
3A of the West Bengal Service Rules,
Part I and/or Rule 13 of the West Bengal
Service (Revision of Pay and Allowance)
Rules, 1970 or Rule 15 of the West
Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and
Allowance) Rules, 1981 or by exercise of
their inherent powers in a manner as
would ensure that the pay scales of the
petitioners as Lower Division Clerks and
Upper Division Clerks be higher than the
pay scales granted to the Moharrirs for
the corresponding periods from 1.4.70."
The admitted position is that for the L.D.C. the
existing scale of pay as per the recommendation of the First
Pay Commission was Rs.232-425/-, for selection grade LDC,
the scale is Rs.310-550/- and for UDC the scale of pay is
Rs.505-670/-. These scales of pay were not disputed.
The question is whether the High Court was justified to
create any intermediate scale of pay between LDC and UDC to
the erstwhile direct recruit Lower Division Clerks. The
contention of Shri Verma is that Moharrirs, who were holding
lower scale of pay prior to their being fused into the
category as LDC, are now getting higher scale of pay as
LDCs, while the direct recruit LDCs are stagnated at the
same scale of pay. Therefore, the High Court was justified
in directing to create intermediate scale of pay. We find no
force in the contention. It is seen that once Moharrirs have
been redesignated as LDCs and fused into the category of
LDCs all become a class. It would appear that in an earlier
litigation filed by the parties, inter se promotion between
the Moharrirs and LDCs as UDC was considered and the High
Court in a writ petition had directed the Government to
prescribe 1:1 ratio between Moharrirs and L.D.Cs. for
promotion to the posts of U.D.Cs. The State Government had
acted upon and issued rules in that behalf. Therefore, each
source, until exhausted, has channel of promotion to the UDC
within their respective 50% quota.
On the Moharrirs being integrated as L.D.Cs., no
further distinction or discrimination in the scale of pay or
promotion chances between Moharrirs and the direct recruit
LDCs. is maintainable. All are now entitled to get the same
scale of pay and other service benefits. It would appear
that in some instances some of the Moharrirs, due to length
of service, are getting higher pay. In fixing their scale of
pay as LDCs, their previous higher pay due to increments was
needed to be protected as special pay and seems to be
subject matter of litigation pending before the High Court.
Therefore, we need not go into that question. It is also
further contended that the direct recruit LDCs are stagnated
on account of the entry by the Moharrirs which caused
hardships to the promotees. As noted earlier, prescription
of the ratio of 1:1 has taken care of the hardship, if any.
We do not, therefore, think that the High Court was right in
giving the impugned directions.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the
High Court is set aside. Parties are directed to bear their
own costs.